What the Daily WTF?

Turning this on it's head. If I can't play Exception Thrower: MMO Edition because everyone else can kill me with exception hacks thrown from 6 solutions and 10,000 lines of code away, I am going to be pretty unhappy about my purchase. This game is bad, I can't derive any meaningful enjoyment from it, but I paid for it and I have exactly as much access as that payment entitles me to.

Yeah, but how far can a company go in making you happy? What if bad words in chat screen make you unhappy? What if losing to a better player over and over again makes you unhappy?

Sure, the vendor should try to make your experience enjoyable. But they also have the obligation towards other people, who also paid for the game. They can't just decide they'll make you happy by removing the others' ability to use the product too.

Or, if they want to make a moral stance against cheaters or cursers or whoever, then they can return the money. They don't get to take the money without delivering the product to everyone who paid.

Really we are talking about who we want to protect, because that's the choice we are making here. We can either protect those who want to hurt other customers and ruin their purchases, or we can protect the customers who don't ruin each others purchases from those that do.

No, it's a false choice. You can protect everyone, by either splitting them into different servers, or refunding the people you refuse to serve.

Are we really arguing that this terrible game design should be illegal? because you can't really argue one without the other.

Ok, that's a strange example. You mean you can't start over, a new game?

Here's a better example: tamagotchi. You know, the virtual pet that dies permanently and you have to buy a new one.

So should people who lost their pet demand a refund? No, because the pet dying is the part of the game. When people bought the game, they knowingly bought a one-off toy. They knew it will eventually shut off. It's expected as part of the product.

In case with online games, people who buy them do so with the expectation that there will be an online component with the game. There's no expectation "at any moment the company can decide to kick me out and render the product I bought useless". That's not part of the game. That's some outside political bullshit that interferes with the game.

Taking it a step further, is it sufficient just to put all those naughty players in a virtual prison where they can run around a room doing nothing until they serve out their sentence of 365 days logged in (auto logout on 5 minutes of inactivity)? they still have access to the product, they just can't do anything meaningful with it. Can we really differentiate between that and banning someone outright?

They still have access to the login screen. They have every right to use the product they bought exactly as their own, informed choices allow. They can look at the credits, the main menu, change their settings, view the starting cinematic or whatever else. At what level do we judge the cut-off between "reasonable access to the product I purchased" before a refund is required? It would be pretty hard to argue (in the context of law) that putting them all on cheater servers is any different than any of these other limits, it's just a matter of degree.

You can't put them in "a virtual prison". That would defeat the purpose, as you say. It has to be the full game, with all the content that was on the box / checklist.

You could just isolate them with a different set of players, though (those who cheat / swear / are noobs / are pros / whatever).

cartman82

@FrostCat said:

I don't have a problem with that. The kind of person who earns a single-instance ban would probably do it again, like my sister, who, along with a bunch of other kids in her junior high class, would regularly go to movies and more or less deliberately get thrown out halfway through, en masse. I can't imagine why they would do it, because all they did was mill around the theater until the movie ended, and wasted a bunch of money. They could've gotten the same effect by going to a parking lot in the mall, but they could've gone to get a burger first.

Ok, that's all true, but doesn't explain why they shouldn't get a refund.

Service is paid for -> service is provided -> all good
Service is paid for -> service provider in advance decides not to provide service for whatever reason -> refund
Service is paid for -> service provider kicks out the offender after service has already started, therefore they can't resell the ticket -> no refund

It's fair and simple. Ensures hooligans can be kept at bay. Ensures service providers are kept honest. Ensures people can enjoy the service. Win win win.

HardwareGeek

They don't get to take the money without delivering the product to everyone who paid.

There is a contract between the play and the game provider. The provider agrees to provide access to play a game. The player agrees to pay money, and to abide by the rules of the game. If the player does not abide by the rules to which he has agreed, he has breached the contract, and the provider has no further obligation to the player. It is not obliged to continue providing access to the game, and it is not obliged to refund the fee (at least not if the terms of the contract say that there will be no refund if the player breaches the contract; I haven't read Daybreak's agreement, but I'd be quite surprised if it didn't include this in its terms).

FrostCat

Ok, that's all true, but doesn't explain why they shouldn't get a refund.

Deterrent effect on others?

cartman82

Fine, but you're now describing a full-on service, not a paid product with a service component.

Even not refunding the remaining time for a service can be iffy, depending how far in advance was paid.

cartman82

Like vegas casinoes breaking cheaters' fingers?

FrostCat

Like vegas casinoes breaking cheaters' fingers?

Yes and no

Gąska

What if losing to a better player over and over again makes you unhappy?

Then Valve Anti-Cheat permabans this better player for all games - as they did with my brother some years ago in CS Source. Sufficiently high reflexes are indistinguishable from aimbot.

As for the refund issue, I think someone should file a lawsuit and test out the local supreme court's reaction. Just to see what happens.

If I didn't leave in German-Russian condominium under Jewish supervision, I would try it out myself.

HardwareGeek

I think someone should file a lawsuit and test out the local supreme court's reaction.

Assuming Daybreak is in the US, I don't see this getting anywhere near the Supreme Court. IANAL, but this seems to me to be well within the realm of long-settled contract law. Appellate courts would only get involved if there were some new legal issue for which there was no clear precedent, or if the trial court erred by failing to follow established principles.

At most, I would see the losing party appealing, the first level of appellate court either affirming the trial court's decision or telling the trial court what it did wrong, and higher appellate courts refusing to hear the case. At worst, the trial judge could not only decide against the cheaters, but decide their case was so obviously without merit as to be frivolous, and make them pay Daybreak's legal costs.

HardwareGeek

Fine, but you're now describing a full-on service, not a paid product with a service component.

Even not refunding the remaining time for a service can be iffy, depending how far in advance was paid.

Here's an example with no service component at all:

You buy a house for, say $100000, and you live there for years, making mortgage payments, until you've paid off, say, 90% of the purchase price, then you stop making payments. The lender forecloses, sells the house at auction, and you get $0¹, never mind that you have paid $90000 (plus interest). You may whine about that being unfair; good luck.

¹ That is not the only, or even most common, outcome of a foreclosure; depending on your jurisdiction, the terms of your mortgage and the type of foreclosure process the lender pursues, you might get some money back if the proceeds exceed the principal, accrued interest, fees, taxes owed, etc., but that would be the outcome of a traditional "strict" foreclosure, and possibly the much more common "non-judicial" foreclosure.

algorythmics

You can't put them in "a virtual prison". That would defeat the purpose, as you say. It has to be the full game, with all the content that was on the box / checklist.

but the other players could still visit them in the prison (during visiting hours), how can you argue that they aren't playing the game? It's just a hyper realistic in-game punishment system.It's just getting sent to prison in Skyrim in a more accurate way. You can even dress up the charges as "Black magics and foul necromancy", how are they not still using the product?

No, because the pet dying is the part of the game. When people bought the game, they knowingly bought a one-off toy.

See as far as I'm concerned, now you are arguing that if you know beforehand something bad can happen it's ok. It's ok if your choices mean you cant use your product any more, provided you know beforehand. Why is it ok for tamagochi but not games where everyone is very clearly told that cheating will get them banned, and everyone knows by default that cheating is against the rules and can safely assume they will be punished?

They got to use the product for a non-zero period of time, until their choices rendered it unusable. I have no recourse if I choose to wash my tablet in the washing machine, because I obviously know electronics shouldn't get wet. They don't tell me this anywhere outside their massive instruction booklets because I know it by default, so I can't use my busy daily life as an excuse for washing it to try and get my money back.

I totally understand your side of this argument and a lot of the time I worry about this sort of thing, what will happen to my games if Valve runs out of money, what will happen to the £100+ I invested in my hearthstone account if Blizzard ever falls over or terminates the service. I just don't think it's actually as scummy to ban cheaters as you think it is.

cartman82

You buy a house for, say $100000, and you live there for years, making mortgage payments, until you've paid off, say, 90% of the purchase price, then you stop making payments. The lender forecloses, sells the house at auction, and you get $01, never mind that you have paid $90000 (plus interest). You may whine about that being unfair; good luck.

If that's what really happens, that's unfair too.

but the other players could still visit them in the prison (during visiting hours), how can you argue that they aren't playing the game? It's just a hyper realistic in-game punishment system.It's just getting sent to prison in Skyrim in a more accurate way. You can even dress up the charges as "Black magics and foul necromancy", how are they not still using the product?

Now that's a pretty elaborate punishment, probably much more effort than just separating servers. Almost like those anti-piracy traps some developers used to make.

It still wouldn't feel right. It's still the developer picking on you, and giving you worse experience based on whether they like how you're using the product you purchased.

Imagine you get a bit mad during a Heartstone game and type a little curse in the chat. Suddenly, "Oh no! It's the Bad Word Vigilante. Look, he stole all the cards you bought, as a punishment for swearing! I guess you better buy them again, now that you've learned your lesson! ... What? What are you complaining, you're still playing the game. That was a part of the game. You knew this could happen, there was a tiny clause in section 23 subsection 16 of the contract you had to click through before playing."

Now replace "Bad Word Vigilante", with "Playing Too Good Vigilante", "Broken English Vigilante", "Openly Gay Vigilante", or any other thing the publisher might decide they don't like and they should "discourage".

See as far as I'm concerned, now you are arguing that if you know beforehand something bad can happen it's ok. It's ok if your choices mean you cant use your product any more, provided you know beforehand. Why is it ok for tamagochi but not games where everyone is very clearly told that cheating will get them banned, and everyone knows by default that cheating is against the rules and can safely assume they will be punished?

Because tamagochi dying is a mechanical action, that is a part of the product you bought. If you figure out a way to hack it so it never dies, it's not like Nintendo is gonna run in with a hammer and smash it, because they don't like how you're using it.

Banning cheaters is a political, human initiated action. It's some guy working for the developer deciding they don't like how you're using the product and taking it away. It has nothing to do with the mechanics with the product itself.

See the difference?

Gąska

You buy a house for, say $100000, and you live there for years, making mortgage payments, until you've paid off, say, 90% of the purchase price, then you stop making payments. The lender forecloses, sells the house at auction, and you get $0, never mind that you have paid $90000 (plus interest). You may whine about that being unfair; good luck.

It IS unfair, and people DID win such cases in court. At least in Poland. Over here, if you fail to pay mortgage, the house is being sold at auction, and the bank gets only as much money from sale as you yet owe it - everything above this limit goes to your pocket. Not sure what happens if the house sells for less than the debt, though.

HardwareGeek

There is one thing everyone here, including me, and especially @cartman82, seems to be overlooking.
@cartman82 said:

But even more than that, it feels different if you're buying a product, instead of leasing a service. When I buy a thing, I expect it to be mine. Don't care about any of their stupid rules. If there's any service attached to the product (like a multiplayer service), I expect that to be provided, so I can enjoy the product I have purchased. Otherwise, refund.

Every software product I have ever "purchased," AFAICR, and this is almost certainly true of you, too, I haven't actually purchased the software; I have purchased a license to use the software, subject to terms and conditions. I haven't read Daybreak's EULA, but I very much doubt they're an exception to the practice of licensing, rather than selling, their software.

Terms and conditions. If you violate the terms and conditions of the license, your license to use the software ends (technically, even if the licensor doesn't know of the violation). You may not care about "their stupid rules," but they are, in general, enforceable by a court. (This assumes they clearly written, not overly broad, unambiguous, reasonable, etc.) Lawyers are pedantic dickweeds on steroids; they love to pick things apart and find loopholes, but if you have a contract that says X (clearly defined, reasonable, etc.) will cause termination of your license, and you do X, the court is going to have very little sympathy for you, especially if doing X is clearly unfair to other licensees.

Let's say you walk into your local computer store and buy a retail boxed copy of, say, MS Word. The license agreement says, among other things, you're not allowed to decompile or reverse-engineer it, and that upon termination of the license, you must destroy any copies you have of the software¹. You take it home, fire up dotPeek, and start poking around at the guts of Word²; you've just violated the terms of, and terminated, your license, without ever having enjoyed any (legitimate) use of the software for which you bought a license. If MS were to somehow learn of this, they could ask a court to force you to destroy every copy of Word in your possession, and they would almost certainly win³. Do you think they should refund your money? I guarantee you the court won't think so^{3, again}.

¹I don't have a copy of the EULA in front of me; I'm not certain it contains these conditions, but they are both very common, so assume for the sake of argument that it does. Also assume you don't live in a jurisdiction in which the right to decompile or reverse-engineer is granted by local law, overriding the EULA.

²Suppose further that you do this in a way that doesn't violate copyright law, or add other legal complications; this is purely a violation of the EULA.

³Almost certainly. There's always a judge somewhere who defies common sense, but they usually get reversed on appeal.

Rhywden

He's pretty certain to whine that he thinks EULAs are unenforcable in general. I even think he already did, can't be bothered to read the thread again.

blakeyrat

what will happen to the £100+ I invested in my hearthstone account if Blizzard ever falls over or terminates the service.

I will point and laugh at you.

That will happen regardless of Blizzard's business health.

Seriously? Hearthstone? At least World of Tanks and Mechwarrior Online are actual games. How do you spend over £100 on "trading cards" that don't even come with a free stick of bubblegum?

PleegWat

It IS unfair, and people DID win such cases in court. At least in Poland. Over here, if you fail to pay mortgage, the house is being sold at auction, and the bank gets only as much money from sale as you yet owe it - everything above this limit goes to your pocket. Not sure what happens if the house sells for less than the debt, though.

In the Netherlands, if your house auctions for less than the remaining debt, you are stuck with the remainder, and still have to pay it off. That may be the key difference here: As I understand it, in the US, if you default on a mortgage, it cancels out, even if the house auctions below the remaining debt value.

HardwareGeek

the bank gets only as much money from sale as you yet owe it - everything above this limit goes to your pocket.

US law is based on English Common Law, so let's start with the traditional Common Law ("strict") foreclosure: Borrower defaults; lender gets the property used as security for the loan, period. Strict foreclosures are not much used any more, although they are still possible in some states.

Judicial foreclosure is available in every state, and is arguably the fairest form of foreclosure, but is slower and more expensive for both the lender and borrower. Borrower defaults; lender files a lawsuit against the borrower; the court sells the property at auction; proceeds go to mortgagor, other outstanding liens (except tax liens, which I think are superior to the mortgage) and debts, and finally, if there is anything left after everybody is paid, the balance goes to the borrower.

Non-judicial foreclosures are the most common, where they are permitted (just over half of the states). The lender itself sells the property and distributes the proceeds to itself and other lienholders. Wikipedia is a bit unclear on what happens if the proceeds of the sale exceed the debt, but this sentence suggests that the borrower may be SOL: "The highest bidder at the auction becomes the owner of the real property, free and clear of interest of the former owner, but possibly encumbered by liens superior to the foreclosed mortgage (e.g., a senior mortgage or unpaid property taxes)."

This may be often be a moot issue, as the probability of the sale yielding more than the amount is owed is not necessarily good, even if the property is worth more than the amount owed. The mortgagor sets the starting bid of the auction, typically at what they, themselves, are owed (i.e., not including other liens), and they are allowed to bid on their own auction. Not only that, they have a distinct advantage over other bidders, in that they are typically allowed to bid on credit (using the property itself to back their credit), while all other bidders must have cash or equivalent (like cashier's checks) in hand at the auction. I don't know how these kinds of auctions go in practice, but ISTM that the property is unlikely to attract other bidders unless it's worth quite a bit more than the amount owed.

Not sure what happens if the house sells for less than the debt, though.

In the US, one of two things may happen (or possibly a combination of both, especially if there is more than one debt owed on the property). The lender(s) can file suit against the borrower for the remaining balance. Or the lender(s) can accept the partial payment and release the borrower from further obligation, in which case the amount forgiven is considered income to the borrower, and he may (depending on his overall tax situation) have to pay income tax on that amount.

Being foreclosed really, really sucks.

HardwareGeek

@Rhywden said:

He's pretty certain to whine that he thinks EULAs are unenforcable in general. I even think he already did,

Yes. Certainly, some of them are. Others, that are properly written, and where the licensee has the opportunity to, ya know, read the agreement before accepting it (whether or not they actually do so) are enforceable. Like so much of law, it depends on the specific, pedantic dickweedy details.

algorythmics

Seriously? Hearthstone? At least World of Tanks and Mechwarrior Online are actual games. How do you spend over £100 on "trading cards" that don't even come with a free stick of bubblegum?

The same way I spent £9 a month on my wow subscription for 5 years, with a credit card.

How is world of tanks more of a game than hearthstone? Is it because you choose not to consider the gating of random collection accrual legitimate progression when compared to the progression in those games? You know the trading cards in hearthstone are actually used for a game right? You play the cards and things happen?

I am far happier to spend my £30 on expanding my collection in hearthstone than buying the "over 10 hours of gameplay" advertised on the box of AAA title #66972. I am getting more value for money that way, because that investment will return far more than 10 hours of gameplay for me. It is one of the few (actually, to date it is the only) games with microtransactions that I will spend money on.

I also have a magic collection that would have a current value of at least £2000+, and considering my position in both games that those investments have bought (I can play 90% of decks in hearthstone, 20% of decks in MTG at most, and even then only in eternal formats) I doubt my choice was a mistake. Giving up standard and putting a fraction of the money saved into Hearthstone has been a great choice. Having won over 1700 games and hence played at least 3000, I am pretty happy with the estimated 400 hours of play that £100 has gotten me, there are few other games that can boast that kind of return.

I would happily spend that £100 again over the next year, but I won't have to since the free progression is enough to keep me current at this point and I have a large enough nest egg for future content that I will need little if any investment over the next 6 months.

ben_lubar

Sufficiently high reflexes are indistinguishable from aimbot.

Not really. If I'm watching from some player's perspective, I can tell whether they move the mouse quickly or magically snap on to their target's forehead. VAC only bans people for the programs they're running on their computer, not their actions in any of the games. I remember that Gabe Newell explained one of the ban waves as "In this case, we look to see if you have a specific domain in your DNS cache. The domain only runs an autoupdate service for a known hacking tool and does not have an HTTP server running on it, so only people with the hacking tool would be banned."

Gąska

@ben_lubar said:

Not really. If I'm watching from some player's perspective, I can tell whether they move the mouse quickly or magically snap on to their target's forehead.

Yet my bro got banned. He was totally legit, it was just his mad skillz that could raise (and raised) suspicions. Mind you, he was awesome at CS - he usually had 5:1 KD ratio.

@ben_lubar said:

VAC only bans people for the programs they're running on their computer, not their actions in any of the games.

I think I remember they also take random screenshots and replays into consideration.

blakeyrat

How is world of tanks more of a game than hearthstone?

You drive tanks and go shoot boom. And there are very very few random number generators determining the outcome.

Hearthstone is nothing but "oh the RNG decided you win. Hooray. I guess."

Is it because you choose not to consider the gating of random collection accrual legitimate progression when compared to the progression in those games?

I don't even know what that means.

You know the trading cards in hearthstone are actually used for a game right?

Right. A boring game.

You play the cards and things happen?

Of course. Really boring things.

I am far happier to spend my £30 on expanding my collection in hearthstone than buying the "over 10 hours of gameplay" advertised on the box of AAA title #66972.

Mechwarrior Online and World of Tanks are equally free-to-play. Added bonus: they're actual games.

I also have a magic collection that would have a current value of at least £2000+, and considering my position in both games that those investments have bought (I can play 90% of decks in hearthstone, 20% of decks in MTG at most, and even then only in eternal formats) I doubt my choice was a mistake.

Ah; you're one of THOSE people. That explains a lot.

Having won over 1700 games and hence played at least 3000, I am pretty happy with the estimated 400 hours of play that £100 has gotten me,

... boring play.

blakeyrat

Yet my bro got banned.

Banned by the anti-cheat code, or banned by some dickhole server admin?

Because the latter happens like 57 times a day. I don't even play multiplayer games without official (i.e. "dickhole-free") servers anymore.

algorythmics

Hearthstone is nothing but "oh the RNG decided you win. Hooray. I guess."

Your opinion based on an assumption based on wilfully ignoring evidence to the contrary. You better watch out for big pharma, they will try and turn your future kids into a cash cow when it comes time to vaccinate them.

blakeyrat

Your opinion based on an assumption based on wilfully ignoring evidence to the contrary.

I've played the game.

I actually had a pretty positive w/l ratio before I quit, too. But since the game is all random number driven, even when you win it doesn't feel satisfying or fair.

Gąska

Banned by the anti-cheat code, or banned by some dickhole server admin?

Banned from all VAC-enabled servers. If it was by machine or by human doesn't matter to me.

cartman82

Correct statement

Yup, that's a whole different can of worms. Intellectual property ownership vs free speech, owning a thing vs having a license. We're not gonna figure out what's right there. And courts certainly aren't any closer.

Putting aside the legal conundrums that poopy head finds so fascinating, let's just agree that whatever their legal status, most games and programs are still being sold as if they are products. You click a "Buy" button and the thing ends up downloaded to your computer, where you can copy it, run it, delete it, whatever. Or you take a box to the register, give money and take the box home. There's no mention of any "licenses" until the thing forces you to click "I Agree".

So, from a personal and moral perspective, it feels right to treat games as if I own them, even if, from a strictly legal perspective, that's not exactly the case. Storefronts are certainly happy to maintain this illusion. Once Steam offers you to "purchase a limited usage license" instead of "Buy 65% off!!!", then we can talk.

EvanED

I have mixed feelings about a lot of stuff in this thread. But for the sake of argument, let's take a different scenario: a chess tournament. Let's say that you enter a tournament. For those unfamiliar, yes, you pay to do this. Then you cheat by kbitzing with a friend during a bathroom run. You are kicked out without a refund.

What do you think about this, @cartman82? For some reason, even though I have mixed feelings about the software bans, the chess tournament scenario seems 100% totally justified. What about to you? And, if so, can you articulate a difference? Is it a clearer delineation of cheating/non-cheating behavior or something?

cartman82

@EvanED said:

I have mixed feelings about a lot of stuff in this thread. But for the sake of argument, let's take a different scenario: a chess tournament. Let's say that you enter a tournament. For those unfamiliar, yes, you pay to do this. Then you cheat by kbitzing with a friend during a bathroom run. You are kicked out without a refund.

What do you think about this, @cartman82? For some reason, even though I have mixed feelings about the software bans, the chess tournament scenario seems 100% totally justified. What about to you? And, if so, can you articulate a difference? Is it a clearer delineation of cheating/non-cheating behavior or something?

After you are kicked out, you can still play chess. You can still enter different tournaments.

The equivalent of a cheater ban would be that you can never play chess again against another person.

EvanED

After you are kicked out, you can still play chess. You can still enter different tournaments.

The equivalent of a cheater ban would be that you can never play chess again against another person.

Well, yes and no.

You didn't pay the entry fee to that tournament to play chess after it's over, you paid for that tournament. And now it's being "taken away" from you.
While you'll eventually be able to join again, you face a lengthy ban. Per FIDE rules, up to 3 years, and possibly changing to 15 years for a second offense. Would a 3-year ban followed by a 15-year ban satisfy you if they did that instead of a permaban? (And of course I doubt you'd have any luck getting a refund on the unused portion of your USCF membership (substitute for your country's association. Though that has other benefits besides the ability to play in tournaments.)

cartman82

@EvanED said:

Well, yes and no.

You didn't pay the entry fee to that tournament to play chess after it's over, you paid for that tournament. And now it's being "taken away" from you.
While you'll eventually be able to join again, you face a lengthy ban. Per FIDE rules, up to 3 years, and possibly changing to 15 years for a second offense. Would a 3-year ban followed by a 15-year ban satisfy you if they did that instead of a permaban? (And of course I doubt you'd have any luck getting a refund on the unused portion of your USCF membership (substitute for your country's association. Though that has other benefits besides the ability to play in tournaments.)

This chess example is too far removed from the online multiplayer. Nobody's talking about any kind of tournament or organized special event. Just a normal usage of the game. More apt comparison would be with a chess set, not a chess competition. And now imagine if FIDE took all your chess sets away during the ban.

algorythmics

all random number driven

you don't understand how TCGs work, and I'm guessing the fact that the same people make up the top 0.5% of players every month isn't going to change that lack of understanding. There isn't really any point in trying to convince you.

Buddy

I just reread the OP and was reminded this game still in beta.

Wait Just a God Damned Minute.

This is beta software that people are getting banned for finding bugs in? If anybody should be making a public apology, it should be the makers of this game, imo.

blakeyrat

you don't understand how TCGs work,

RNGs.

and I'm guessing the fact that the same people make up the top 0.5% of players every month isn't going to change that lack of understanding.

They're probably just suckers like you who spent the most money to get the best cards.

There's two factors going into who wins a collectible card game:

Random number generator
How much fucking money you spent

That's it. And that's as true of Magic in real life as it is in a computer trading card game, too. Trading card games are boring as shit.

There isn't really any point in trying to convince you.

This is true.

Gąska

There's two factors going into who wins a collectible card game:

Random number generator

How much fucking money you spent

There's also third factor: minmaxing some specific aspects of your deck and Morrowindesque abuse of the very complicated card rules to make killer combos. But mostly the first two.

blakeyrat

Going from boredom to mega-boredom.

At least in MechWarrior when you're done using the MechLab you can DRIVE THE GIANT KILLER ROBOT

Gąska

Are you one of those people who think Paradox Interactive games are utterly boring because you don't see your giant armies actually fighting?

blakeyrat

Of their list of games I've played... Lead and Gold, which is a normal FPS, Mount and Blade, where combat is FPS, and Magicka, which is a shitty ass game of awful shit.

Oh and Ship Simulator, which ... is a ship simulator.

Gąska

I meant Europa Universalis, Crusader Kings, Victoria, Hearts of Iron. You know, those historically-somewhat-accurate grand strategy games they're so well known of.

algorythmics

They're probably just suckers like you who spent the most money to get the best cards.

Then why aren't I one of them?

2) How much fucking money you spent

At high level play, everyone spent that much money (or grew their collection basically for free by being really fucking good at Arena/Draft, which I'm not). Once you have every card how much money you spent is no longer a variable against other people who have the same cards. So basically what you are saying is "when you play the game like I play it, you can't win". That doesn't make it not a game, although you seem to have backed off from that indefensible position.

@aliceif This probably needs to be jeffed at this poiont

blakeyrat

So basically what you are saying is "when you play the game like I play it, you can't win".

I have no idea what you are talking talk and also which one of us "I" refers to in that quotation.

Gąska